Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART Review for draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis

[Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan, thanks for the review. Comments below.

On 5/27/15 7:00 AM, Romascanu, Dan (Dan) wrote:
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at
>
> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__wiki.tools.ietf.org_area_gen_trac_wiki_GenArtfaq&d=AAMFAw&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=I4dzGxR31OcNXCJfQzvlsiLQfucBXRucPvdrphpBsFA&m=r8UFfP-NUIqoQixcKqofblfdzNSaZvjkRfw3L7VsyHc&s=DCDmXhyc7XoNYI-SEtLco1iUd9vIjB8nxVWrudr4dV0&e=>>.
>
> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
> you may receive.
>
> Document:
> https://art.tools.ietf.org/tools/art/genart/index.cgi/t=965/doc?selected_doc=draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
>
> Review Date: 5/27/15
>
> IETF LC End Date: 6/3/15
>
> IESG Telechat date:
>
> Summary:
>
> Ready with one issue which I believe is worth discussing.
>
> Major issues:
>
> I have a concern about backwards compatibility and migration. In the
> migration between 6122 and 6122bis deployments it is possible that
> previously-valid JIDs might no longer be valid or previously-invalid
> JIDs become valid. Because of this the Introduction says that operators
> of XMPP services are advised to perform careful testing before migrating
> accounts and other data.
>
> In a dialog with Peter Saint-Andre (document author) I asked if  there
> are any recommendations that could be made to the application designers
> and operators respectively to ease the migration?
>
> His answer pointed to section 6 (actually I think that 6.1 applies) in
> in draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis. I believe that a pointer to that
> section in a ‘migration / backwards compatibility’ section would be
> useful for the application designers. What about the operators, however?
> Can more details about what operator should test to ensure compatible
> migration of users and applications be provided  beyond what is
> mentioned in the introduction?

We tried to make Section 6 of draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis focused on 
the needs of operators, not application designers. (I happen to be the 
operator of a relatively large instant messaging service that will need 
to do some testing and possibly some data munging when we migrate our 
account data from Stringprep to PRECIS, so I wrote that text with my 
operator hat on.) If the text in draft-ietf-precis-saslprepbis is not 
complete enough, then we need to figure that out now because it's on the 
IESG telechat tomorrow. I do think that's the right place to discuss the 
matter, because draft-ietf-xmpp-6122bis merely uses the 
UsernameCaseMapped profile defined in that document.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/